That was applicable 2 years ago when there was only a few holders of stake. There are now many holders of stake and a vote would be more balanced along the players that be. If it went to voting now the foundation would still sit in the same place probably without the regent vote. If for one a vote is even called and the witnesses decide to keep things as it is nothing changes.
If they don't I could then see cause for concern as then the blockchain can be controlled by a cobal as we have seen else where. That is when we might see a fork or the foundation decide to take their talent to a new project.
So far I have not see anyone asking for a witness vote of this kind other then someone who is bitter and wants to burn blurt. Even if he does still have most of his holding it may not be enough still to make a difference.
I've been asking loosely for some kind of vote for days now, even some real commentary from witnesses and the Foundation. I'm not sure why this is being allowed to continue on without nipping it in the bud one way or another. The whales advocating for the stepping away aren't stopping their calls, they are escalating it with more accusations and nods of seeking legal remedy.
This needs dealt with, it's not going away. And the longer it's allowed to fester is bad.
Do you think if the vote of socialgraph will be removed, the ranking of current witnesses will change a lot ?
I do not think it will change much. Remember this account was made when stake was only in a few hands. It has fanned out now into different spheres of influence. And of course a lot of stake is held in founders hands and foundation members personal hands. And I dont think we have to be critical of that this is not a communist utopia, they built the house they will have a bigger stake unless someone come in and self funds their own bigger stake. The one crying so much historically would not even have a big enough stake to get what he wants and ultimately that is the problem. If he wants to play tyrant he needs to take his money to an even smaller sandbox.
I think nobody here trusts anybody. It's a problem of the digital business where people are asked to prove their work, for a lack of personal contacts, contracts and availability, for example.
The problem I see to give proof of work to the public is that if the public does not understand the technicalities of this work it won't perceive it as proven. Also, lack of technical understanding leads to insecurity.
Witnesses who don't really know their stuff, but who do know something about advertising and emotional influence, talk in the subjunctive or in future terms about their beautiful plans for improving the functions, and the untrained amateur may be impressed by the technical terms with which under-skilled witnesses decorate their blog posts.
If I have the impression that some witnesses are more at the level of a learner who sees the whole thing here rather as a training programme for his still-to-be-trained skills, it would be more appropriate on the part of the public and the founders who pay these witnesses not to continue paying the inexperienced if they cannot deliver the performance for which they are being compensated. Or to make a sliding scale in payment that differentiates between improving the functions and maintaining a server, for example.
I, as someone without technical understanding in code etc. , am a "dumb" user. In order to trust a platform like this, I need a space where I can go with one click and see the stats and numbers not only listed in tech jargon but also translated into language a lay person understands. If that would be already enough, I don't know. Probably not for me personally. I usually don't put any trust into digital relationships where I would risk money I can't spend just for the fun of it.
So I conclude that there must be a centralized team which can estimate the skills of their paid staff.
Still, when I am here for the mere fun of it (like in a casino) I need the casino to run working tables.
So far no one reacted to my question why I get a cartoon figure when I try to access certain user accounts. Any witness have an answer on that?
People are used to get information at a prominent and central place. One serves it better otherwise trust is going down even more. When I open blurt page, I shall immediately get directed to data/stats/proposals etc.
It's already one too many of a button I must press and also no self explaining term for a dumb user when he is able to find the side bar. Easy information must be at the front page which opens up and must appear in a more prominent way. But all I find is "hot, trending, new". That is such a poor design and landing way for dumb users.
You seem to know quite a bit about technicalities. Whom of the witnesses do you think it makes sense to ask? I know no one of them.
@outofthematrix
I am here... I promised to be here for the people on the blockchain and not on Discord... and I stand to that!
I will try to help as best I can in this extremely heated up situation...
...und ich komme zufällig aus Deutschland... Also gern auch auf deutsch!
Naja, eigentlich hab ich keine Fragen. Der technische Mangel, den ich moniert hatte, der wurde von einem witness ausgeräumt.
Das Drama hier ist Lindenstraße. Abwarten, was geschieht.
Grüße aus dem Norden Deutschlands! :)
Ok! 👍 Das Drama legt sich auch gerade! Siehe mein Post: https://blurt.blog/blurt/@outofthematrix/end-these-freeze-rumors-right-now-beendet-endlich-diese-einfriergeruechte-eng-ger
LG aus dem sonnigen Osten!🌞
blockchain is supposed to be a "trustless system"
Hm. I am not sure if it can be made one. Why would you want such a system anyway?
A trustless system requires the absence of humans in my understanding.
But running a blockchain without humans interactions does not make any sense, does it?
bitcoin is a trustless-system
anyone who wants to can run a node
all nodes must run identical code or be rejected from the network
51% of all nodes must change their code in order for the code to change
everyone can see all the code
no individual human has to trust any "authority" to tell them what is in the code
no individual human has to trust any other individual human to transfer bitcoin to another account
because the code can be trusted because the code is transparent
and because it would take an enormous amount of consensus in order to change the code
unlike hive and steem and blurt which only requires the consensus of 18 or so individuals
and in the steem case, one individual running 18 nodes
and in the hive case, maybe three individuals and 15 sycophants
As ingenious as this Satoshi system is, it turned out that it is only possible for a few to buy bitcoins. This eliminates it as a usable system for the general public, doesn't it?
Since mining bitcoins involves immense energy expenditure, it is not a very economically viable system from this point of view either.
It seems to me that it is a fascinating theoretical possibility of transfers via electronic means.
For those who perceive the digital world as a Janus-faced sphere, or the negative aspects, it may well be seen as threatening. From what I have read, the fiat money system seems to be down and the economic forces are doing everything they can to keep it alive. Some believe that Bitcoin is the salvation from this. I know too little to be able to judge that.
IF the accusations are correct and their vote has not decayed over the last 23 months then they are voting
https://blurt.blog/dao/@socialgraph/socialgraph-foundation-to-custody-dao-funds
By default undiluted be equal to the entire voting stake in play if my understanding of this wordage is correct.
I qualify this to I've only seen accusations this has not been diluted, but given there has been no official response I can't ignore that possibility. I'm not a coder so am not sure where one would even look at the code to see if there is some form of math code that automatically dilutes it weekly or monthly.
Rather than the foundation needing to find one voice to come out and say that they are innocent. Why dont we ask the ones making the accusation prove that their accusation is true rather than just making it. To me it looks like creation of confusion and fear because someone did not get their way, they should be ignored unless they can show me that the vote has not diluted over the past 23 months or that it will not be gone on the 4th.
From what I see socialgraph is having only 5 million bp, other is delegated. I guess the witness vote plays a role only if it's not delegated, I'm not sure of that, but I heard about that before. If that's the case, 5 million compared to the top witness who's voted with 101 million, is not that much. Or the vote is usually counted even if the amount is delegated ?
Even if socialgraph is voting with all 23 million, do you think that so big compared to top witnesses who are voted with from 86 up to 101 million ? The issue is only on witness votes, or there is another issue ?
Hi, i think it's like this:
@initblurt votes for witness with 22,058,826.103 BP.
@socialgraph votes for witness with 23,013,822.602 BP.
@blurt.regent votes for wittnes.
@blurt.regent seems to have BP equal to 1 only. I don't know exactly how it is done, but the votes are higher, according to my memory. Through a code this is disguised. rycharde talked about it in a comment a few days ago. He knows and the foundation knows. You can ask Jocob also.
Because there is nothing to nip in the bud. On july 4th they can see how their votes have stacked up with everyone elses and see where the witness list lies. Nothing else requires any sort of action. If the whales are not happy with that they go. But it was not because they were somehow duped or fraud-ed. Nothing was hidden it was said from the beginning. The code is there and tells the story it is their on negligence if they did not read it and for some reason stupidly believed just because they have a big stake they get their way or can push things how they want it.
They have their freedom of speech and freedom of vote. I don't think blurt as it stands can even be sued. But some whales are individuals and could be sued for libel, and false accusation of fraud if it hurts the community and business.
This is the FUD of some cry babies and really not that serious and I wish you could take your amazing energy in another direction with this one.
In short they dont need to nip anything in the bud because the cry babies are allowed to cry on blurt even if all it is, is spilt milk and misunderstandings about some of the safeguards built into blurt to keep cry babies from spoiling everything.
I think you should see the whole thing as a net positive for the platform not a negative.
Also why are you asking for a vote, only for clarification. To me it is already clear. Next month the regent vote wont mean anything for witness votes. Peoples stakes will determine that. The weight of the stakes and voting probably loosely resemble the top 30 already so little with change.
I don't think we ask for a vote that could cause more issue on the chain if there is no problem to be fixed. The only issue is that blurt is more susceptible to a whale attack on witnesses, but so far beyond founders and foundation member I dont think there is a vote big enough to change things for a single user or outside cabal. Maybe if binance wanted to come in here and stir things up with a powerup then we might be a threat.